The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
8 Points

true laissez faire libertarianism iz dangerous

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/15/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 262 times Debate No: 81031
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)




people will die of food with no food stamps

people will die of disease with no healthcare

people will die of disease with no food regulations

people will die of pollution and the environment will be tainted with no enviro regs

i could go on


I accept.

I feel honnored to participate in your 600th debate. Congrats.
Debate Round No. 1


duly noted. the opening post was my opening arguments. how do you respond?


Contention 1: The Role of the Government

P1.The Government should only act to enforce the Imperatives of Perfect Duties.
P2. Social Programs and regulation does not meet the standard of a Perfect Duty.
C1: Thus, the Government should not act to enforce regulations nor social programs..

""Kant's first formulation of the CI states that you are to “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law... Perfect duties come in the form ‘One mustnever (or always) φ to the fullest extent possible in C’, while imperfect duties, since they enjoin the pursuit of an end, come in the form ‘One must sometimes and to some extent φ in C’" [1]

According to the above we see that Kant establishes two duties of that of the government; Perfect Duties and Imperfect Duties. Perfect Duties are those things of which the government must provide to ensure that the government and that society is fully functional. What are these things you may ask? These things are the simple things ensured under that of the Social Contract that you give up for a Civilized Society. These things are indeed key as we can see that this ensures that of a Minarchy at the minimum. What that means is that the Government is to ensure that the people are safe. Everything else falls into that of the Imperfect Duties. Now note that these things may protect and benefit the public, we can see that if they're not of the Social Contract like ideals that they automatically fall into this category and SHOULD NOT be carried out by the government, but by Private entities.

“Any action is right if it can coexist with everyone's freedom in accordance with a universal law, or if on its maxim the freedom of choice of each can coexist with everyone's freedom in accordance with a universal law” [2]

We can see that if the government intervenes on the behalf on the people to infringe on that of an Imperfect duty that they would undermining humanity to achieve their due ends. We can see and must ensure that the Imperfect Duties are carried out by the Private Entites as things like people's health and Private debt is something that is to be delt with by the individual NOT the government. [3] Kant also argues that Rights are not created by the establishment of government. [4] So this furthers that things like Social Programs are not a right for the people and thus it should not be preformed by the federal government, but instead run by a private company.

The finial part of the argument here revolves around Distributive Justice. We can see that the there are two types of rights: Positive Rights and Negative Rights.

Positive Rights- Duty to help others, like provide Social Security, Free internet, food stamps, welfare, etc...
Negative Rights- Freedom of Speach, Press, property, etc... Freedom from Crime, violence, etc... [5]

Nozick, Libertarian Ethics Philosopher, has shown that the federal government shoul only enforce negative rights. [6] The distributive justice is the distrabution of society's burdens and benefits. The Libertarian Principle argues for there being no positive Rights, but negative rights on the grounds that people will work the hardest and for the greatest possible soceity through their own means. This was even acknowledged by Alexis De Tocqueville who noted that the American individualism caused them to be self-entrapenurial and to work towards improvement for their own good and that it also helps society. [7] Though many may argue that this causes a division De Tocqueville saw that America was a Civil nation where they they were treated equally and was the only country that called the waiter "Sir" as if he was a knight.

Contention 2: Property rights

In the Rapanos V US Supreme Court case, Rapanos's land was over 20 miles away from the nearest waterway and the EPA attacked Rapanos claiming that he had Nexus Waters. This means that simply that his lands were "close" enough to Navigatable Waters, but it was over 20 miles away. Another crime was that it was "Hydrologically connected" and in violation of the Migratory bird test. This means that during the birds migration south for the winter is a bird lands on your land it can be protected by the EPA for it being Hydrologically connected. Under this bill this corrupt protection will be nullified. [8] Things have gotten so obseen that things as simple as drainage ditchages are concidered "Navigatable Waters" by the EPA and that shouldn't be permitted. [9] We can continue to see that some of our natural rights are harmed and destroyed when we come to regulation. As I pointed out in my last contention Nozick shows that we need to protect negative rights over positive rights and in this one we are harming our negative righs via positive rights. Not only should this type of regulation not exist, but regulations in general should not exist.

Health care can still exist in a Laizze-Faire economy. It would just be private. How do you think we opperated pre-ACA and still opperate? My opponent also fails to realize that we used to live in many of these worlds, but yet nothing bad actually occured. Today we just have horrid governmental overregulation. We can see that if we simply got out of business the prices would handle themselves and would drive the market to bigger better things which include cleaner food and much more. [10]

1. (
2. (Lectures and Drafts on Political Philosophy, translated Frederick Rauscher and Kenneth Westphal (in preparation). Relevant contents: "Naturrecht Feyerabend" course lecture, fragments on political philosophy, and drafts of works in political philosophy.)
3. (Johnson, Robert. "Kant's Moral Philosophy." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2012.)
4. (
5. (The Objectivist Ethics, Ayn Rand (1961)
6. (
7. (
8. ( [Use wayback machine for this source]
9. (
10. (
Debate Round No. 2


so con doesn't really dispute the resolution. he just says dangerous or not, it's not the government's role to do the things i mentioned as examples. all i really have to do to disagree is to say i dont agree, and add that it's in the social contract and natural law for people to be able to do what they need to eat etc. if we deprive them of their rights, we must make up for it in the social contract. i might even be able to call it a perfect duty to use con's jargon? at any rate, con had a lot of academic bluster which didnt add up to much more than saying he has some fundamental differences with me.

he did mention the EPA going against its lawful mandate. true, but it still has the authority to mandate a lot of stuff legally. and, we dont have to just talk about the constitution... we can talk about things more generally as in what "ought" to be. in that vein con doen't dispute pollution can kill and cause harm to the environment. con says health care can still exist in a laizze faire economy. he doesn't dispute that people die without healthcare though. if this is "working" to him, then we have a different expectation for what works and what doesn't.


I did refute and defeat the resolution all of which was dropped. My opponent clearly dropped the entire thing, so I extend upon Kant and Nozick's Prinicples across the board. My opponent then tries to state that protection of good food to eat is that of a perfect duty, but this is false as it involves helping others and this is a textbook classification of an Imperfect duty. [1] Thus we can see that this portion by Pro is negated. My opponent argues that I didn't refute the resolution, but when I argued that the government interfearence is harmful and hurts us I showed that it is harmful, not to mention that the BOP is on Pro who has yet to uphold her BOP to show that it is harmful in the first place.

My opponent doesn't refute my argument at all. This is an EPA mandate, but a very bad one and abuse of government power which is something that was dropped by my opponent. My opponent claims that I didn't dispute that we would die without healthcare. First I broke the link to the argument showing that there's no cahnge from status quo and free market. This was dropped by my opponent. Even if I dropped this argument it wouldn't harm me concidering that there is no Link. To argue in favor of my opponent's side on this part is just faulty. Healthcare is something that insurance picks up a large chunck of your medical bill. If there was no health care or said person just paid out of pocket then they would still be alive. They would just have to pay more.

With that we can see that my opponent has dropped several, if not all of my arguments. I urge you to vote Con.

Thank you.

1. (
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
I'm posting my argument around 3ish.
Posted by Sciguy 1 year ago
However, I will vote on whomever does better. I am not the most biased person you know. Congrats on 600 debates over a seven year span!
Posted by Sciguy 1 year ago
I do not believe this debate is the greatest, in fact, I think it is one of the worst and slightly better than homework.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: I believe that the sources provided by lannan here supports his claim that the government shouldn't be engaging in such activities. His opponent, on the other hand, offered no sources. These sources specifically bolstered his arguments and made them stronger.
Vote Placed by WillRiley 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used no capitalization. Con refuted every argument that Pro made, Pro tried to say they won without doing, well really, much of anything. Con also used numerous sources. This debate has a clear winner.